data_run_pipeline

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already signal non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It usefully adds that the call routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not disclose concrete side effects, asynchronous behavior, or what the destructive aspect applies to.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core action, and organized with a clear Args section. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the opening line partly restates the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers the basic invocation path and both parameters reasonably well. It is still incomplete for confident selection in ambiguous cases because it does not explain what run_pipeline accomplishes, what a good message/inputs look like, or how this tool relates to sibling data pipeline tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the documentation burden. It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'optional JSON string of structured inputs.' It does not provide a detailed JSON structure or examples, but both parameters become usable.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run the data domain agent action run_pipeline', and it adds routing/scoping context. However, it does not explain what the pipeline actually does or distinguish itself from siblings like data_author_pipeline, data_submit_job, coding_run_pipeline, or dispatch_domain_agent, so it falls short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied by the first sentence—invoke the run_pipeline data-domain action—so an agent can infer when to call it. But the description gives no explicit when-to-use/avoid guidance and names no alternatives, leaving selection among many pipeline-related siblings to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.